4 ms·

Their experiences, anecdotes, complaints and feelings of personal safety are meaningless?

• benchaney 10y ago
  No, but it is irrelevant to what is being discussed.
  • tomlock 10y ago
    Earlier you thought I was insisting women would be offended by something, and you’ve since stated that if I wasn’t insisting that, my “argument” was meaningless. What did you think we were discussing? Did you think that if women were offended, that would have been an argument for pitchforking? Were you saying I hadn't provided enough evidence women were offended? You haven't really said what you think is missing here, or even what you think I was getting at. Could you let me know what you think some relevant points would be? Is there any evidence that would persuade you of whatever it is you think we're arguing about? I think I've addressed or asked questions about as many of your straightforward (if a little emotional) statements as I can.
    • benchaney 10y ago
      Yes, when you said women might be offended by the statement that pitchforking is bad, that was clearly a criticism of the statement that pitchforking is bad. That criticism is nonsense, and you supplied no actual logic or evidence of an issue with that statement. I don't see why this is difficult to understand. Your response to someone advocating against pitchforking was clearly hostile.
      • hueving 10y ago
        Well clearly anyone who suggests taking a reasoned response to an accusation is clearly someone who would assault women.
      • tomlock 10y ago
        You thought I was criticizing the content of his post? Incorrect.
        • benchaney 10y ago
          "Understood. You should get your lady friends in tech to read the comments you posted on a throwaway. Do you think they'll feel safer around you?" Are you seriously going to argue this isn't a criticism?
          • tomlock 10y ago
            No? Why would I argue that? It is a criticism. Just not of the content.
            • benchaney 10y ago
              The only thing about a post that is rational to criticize is the content. What else could you criticize? The name of the person who posted it? The time when it was posted?
              • tomlock 10y ago
                The blog post it was posted on? How posting it here would make people feel?
                • benchaney 10y ago
                  "The blog post it was posted on?" Unless what you mean is that you don't want any comments on that blog post, this is actually a criticism of content. "How posting it here would make people feel?" Also content.
                  • tomlock 10y ago
                    So you don't think the name or time is content, but you do think where the comment is, is content? Do you feel like if you make a comment in one situation, and then make the exact same comment in another situation, that the content of the comment has changed? Keep in mind that the time or name used on the comment may have changed - you've ruled those out. Your line of argument earlier was that you thought I was against complaints about pitchforking. Have you abandoned that line of reasoning? I personally don't think the content of most arguments against pitchforking is objectionable.